Swashbuckler - An exercise in basic class building.

[PrecociousApprentice]

I think that this is the kind of thing that will go on in WotC R&D rooms, as well as design rooms in many 3rd party publishers. This is a good start, and I think that we will all have fun with this kind of thing.

That being said, I think that the multiclass base classes will still fall into a defined role. The intent of the strong role model that WotC has embraced is to ensure that

1)everyone is effective.
2)No-one's toes gets stepped on.

This alternate lightly armed and armored martial character that is a non-theify, non-nature oriented class is great, and there is plenty of room for swashbucklers, but I think that ensuring that they are strongly strikers or strongly defenders will be necessary to fit with the program. A little overlap with roles is fine, but making sure that the toe stepping is very minor, and in line with the rest of the classes in the context of the new class, without making any class useless or unfun, will be the challenge.

Just cutting and pasting the powers from one class to another could pose big problems for the class ballance. Look to the Paladin for a good model of adding a new schtick (healing) to a defender without making the class with that schtick obsolete. You gotta ask youself two things. How will the ranger and rogue stack up, and how will the fighter stack up. You even threw in some buffing. I would say pick a role, stick to that role, and try not to let this class be everything to everybody. Not that it is now, but fleshing out the higher level powers could allow some serious role drift to happen.

 

[mrtomsmith]

Excellent work, I like the simplicity of borrowing or modifying existing powers to piece together a new class.

However, for me, it doesn't achieve the stated goal. If I want to make a two-weapon fighter, why do I have to have Streetwise? My first thought when you were describing the fluff goals for this class were very Musketeer-like (I used to play 7th Sea), so the aristocratic acrobatic two-weapon character in my head would never have Streetwise. There are many people who want a "lightly armored martial striker" that doesn't also HAVE to have the nature or thief or streetwise archetype tacked on.

 

[Khaalis]

Excellent work, I like the simplicity of borrowing or modifying existing powers to piece together a new class.

However, for me, it doesn't achieve the stated goal. If I want to make a two-weapon fighter, why do I have to have Streetwise? My first thought when you were describing the fluff goals for this class were very Musketeer-like (I used to play 7th Sea), so the aristocratic acrobatic two-weapon character in my head would never have Streetwise. There are many people who want a "lightly armored martial striker" that doesn't also HAVE to have the nature or thief or streetwise archetype tacked on.

Just out of curiosity, I'm curious why you would choose a Swashbuckler to portray a Musketeer. Is this based purely on the movie variations of the Three Musketeers? I ask because historically, Musketeers were not truly known for a "swashbuckling" fighting style. They were junior infantry units (though they did occasionally fight mounted [dragoons]) equipped with, trained in, and famous for musket use and are from the early 17 century. I would think that a Musketeer would deserve a class unto itself as a variant of the ranger (a ranged striker).

I'll admit that "swashbuckler" means different things to different people, which is why it is always very difficult to create a class that fits everyone's ideals. In fact, using the term Swashbuckler may have been in error on my part as it is a very narrow view of the 'lightly armored striker' I was trying to portray.

In fact, a Swashbuckler (or swasher) is also a 17 century term used to describe boisterous swordsmen who fought with a side-sword (note - not rapiers) and buckler. However, what I was using the term as is the more modern usage, encompassing the more romantic and adventurous rake of a swordsman. The typical such swashbuckler was notorious for their carousing as well as their familiarity with their locale (which in D&D terms basically equates to streetwise, the urban version of the nature skill). However, I CAN see the argument for making this simply a class skill, not a mandatory skill.

With all that said, I should probably think to rename the basic class as "Fencer" - using the modern meaning of the term. From that I would then diversify the class by naming the two builds as follows:

* Swashbuckler - a more defender oriented build relying on the use of a light weapon and buckler.

* Duelist - an offensive focused build focusing on single light weapon or dual-wielded light weapons.


As to powers, keep in mind that almost all of the core PHB classes have a single role for which they are "best" at, but they also fulfill secondary roles as well. As was mentioned the Paladin is primarily a Defender but fulfills the secondary role of Leader in the types of powers it gets. In this particular case, the "Fencer" archetype is primarily a striker, with the secondary role of Defender.

Also keep in mind that each class's powers have dual focuses, based on these roles. Even the fighter - who is a primary defender, has the option to instead focus on their secondary role of striker by taking primary focus on two-handed weapons and all damage dealing abilities rather than defender focused abilities.

In that light, I don't think the mix of powers the first Draft of the class has are too far off the mark. Even the "buff" power is appropriate to a fencer based character that by definition is skilled at placing their target off-balance and at a disadvantaging position. This type of minor "variation" in the focus of powers is what makes a new class unique from an existing class. If this class simply had powers that were 100% mimics of the rogue, it wouldn't be a new class, but simply a re-flavoring of the rogue, which was not the intent.